How Man’s Effect On Nature Will Change Your Life

So here we are again. The only life-bearing planet of which we’re aware has successfully circumnavigated its sun* once more. We’ve now gone beyond the number of orbits calculated by the sums of a Man in a Shed as being the one by which we ought to now be reducing our carbon emissions if we are to succeed in not breaching the infamous 2 degree barrier (the same one that a bunch of back-patting optimists in Paris have recently announced, despite all evidence to the contrary, as being eminently achievable).

And still there are folks out there arguing that ‘the hockey stick’ is ‘flawed’ or ‘falsifiable’ not falsifiable [thanks to Hariod for pointing out my mistake; see comment below]. And even those who agree that something ought to be done are in a pervasive quagmire, attempting to persuade those entrenched within fortifications of accustomed entitlement who refuse to even contemplate any action that might be detrimental to their way of life — let alone accept the reality that inaction will inevitably have the same effect.

And so we as a species (one that I continue to maintain should be renamed homo fatuus brutus) do nothing of any great consequence towards the important goal. Isn’t life grand?

* … a sun that emits such a vast quantity of energy that an hour’s worth of even the tiny fraction of it that impacts upon our insignificant planet could power our entire global civilisation for a whole year. I keep thinking: “If we’re really as smart as we like to think we are, we’d have already figured out how to harvest that”.

Advertisements

About pendantry

Phlyarologist (part-time) and pendant. Campaigner for action against anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and injustice in all its forms. Humanist, atheist, notoftenpist. Wannabe poet, writer and astronaut.
This entry was posted in ... wait, what?, balance, Biodiversity, Climate, Communication, Core thought, Culture, Drama, Economics, Education, Energy, Environment, Food, GCD: Global climate disruption, Health, History, News and politics, Phlyarology, Science, Strategy, Water and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to How Man’s Effect On Nature Will Change Your Life

  1. Arrgh but we have figured out how to harvest the Sun’s energy my friend.. Sadly too many of those homo fatuus brutus) who derive their happiness from those little bits of green Paper are not wanting to let go of their hold upon their oily power.. πŸ™‚
    Lovely to revisit some of your previous posts and to re-read our thoughts within the “the sums of a Man in a Shed ” πŸ™‚

    I hope you feel like posting more of your thoughts this year dear P..

    all the best for 2016 πŸ™‚ Sue

    • pendantry says:

      My mistake, I was insufficiently precise: the ‘that’ I muse about humanity harvesting is the year’s worth of free energy from the sun.

      Is it really beyond the wit of a creature that has the hubris to call itself “the wise, thinking man” (homo sapiens sapiens) to figure out how to gather an hour’s worth of sunlight over the course of a year?

      A rhetorical question: clearly, it is beyond us. Instead, we resort to using stored sunlight, in the form of fossil fuels that formed over the course of many millennia (and think nothing of burning it all in a couple of hundred years or so, destroying our environment in the process). That the reason we still do this is, arguably, largely down to the actions of a few who don’t wish to lose their position at the top of the tree is beside the point; we’re all in the same (sinking) lifeboat, and all too few are bailing out water.

      Very best of wishes to you for the forthcoming iteration of our voyage around the sun, too πŸ™‚

  2. Hariod Brawn says:

    Good to hear your voice in sceptical mode as regards the Paris Agreement; it’s been a little depressing noting people assume they’ve solved the issue as a result of what is largely political grand-standing. On the ‘falsifiable’ thing, then that is no criticism in a Popperian sense is it? i.e. all truly scientific theories must be falsifiable, if only in theory.

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf

    • pendantry says:

      I find the grandstanding more than a little worrying. It smacks of yet more interference from the dark side, who resorted to decades of heavily funded misinformation campaigns because they knew very well that they couldn’t win ‘the debate’ on factual grounds. The cynic in me wonders whether this is simply another facet of that. Suggesting that ‘two degrees’ is feasible — when it so clearly is not, given current technology — implies we don’t have to do much to solve the problem, weakening the political will to, you know, actually do something.

      Thank you for pointing out the deliberate mistake I made to check whether you were awake. πŸ˜‰ I’ll go fix that, right now.

  3. lorriebowden says:

    I about dropped my phone I was laughing so hard when I read “homo fatuus brutus!” I’m sorry…I will go back and re-read because I know this is serious subject matter…but not before I go to “HFB.” πŸ˜‰ Happy I landed here πŸ™‚

  4. Dr Bob Rich says:

    You are perfectly correct as usual, sir.
    Need to practise equanimity.
    πŸ™‚

I'd love to hear what your views are!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s